Mutual Slavery - is it possible? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion



Message

SocratesNot -> Mutual Slavery - is it possible? (5/20/2010 9:37:43 AM)

A completely new concept came to my mind - that of mutual slavery. Is it possible to achieve in reality?

The Mutual Slavery would consist of the following:

There are 2 people, and each of them has absolute control over the life of the other but not over his/her own life.

Simply put, I decide what you do, but I have no power to decide what I myself will do, this is your deceision.

You decide what I do, but you have no power in deciding what you yourself will do, this is my decision.

So I must obey you.
You must obey me.

Both of those people would be Master and Slave to each other simultaneously.



VaguelyCurious -> RE: Mutual Slavery - is it possible? (5/20/2010 9:45:56 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SocratesNot

Simply put, I decide what you do, but I have no power to decide what I myself will do, this is your deceision.

You decide what I do, but you have no power in deciding what you yourself will do, this is my decision.
If you have no power over your own decisions, who picks where to go for lunch? Or what position to do the nasty in?

Who has control of decisions which affect both parties?

VC, Devil's Advocate to the Stars



ReginaMirus -> RE: Mutual Slavery - is it possible? (5/20/2010 9:49:19 AM)

Pfft...yeah. It's called MARRIAGE.



SocratesNot -> RE: Mutual Slavery - is it possible? (5/20/2010 9:49:58 AM)

OK, maybe I defined it too rigorously.

Each of them would still have power over their own decisions, but only as long as those decisions are not in conflict with the orders of the other.

When it comes to decisions concerning both of them, they would negotiate, just like vanilla folks do.



ReginaMirus -> RE: Mutual Slavery - is it possible? (5/20/2010 9:50:22 AM)

And yeah, that was very tongue in cheek. No offense to the happily marrieds.



Jeffff -> RE: Mutual Slavery - is it possible? (5/20/2010 9:50:55 AM)

This premise hurts my head.

What would the upside be?

Who benefits?




SocratesNot -> RE: Mutual Slavery - is it possible? (5/20/2010 9:52:01 AM)

Pfft...yeah. It's called MARRIAGE.

Yeah, this is a good point, but still, my concept of mutual slavery would be a little more rigorous than marriage, and more kinky.




porcelaine -> RE: Mutual Slavery - is it possible? (5/20/2010 9:53:59 AM)

SocratesNot,

quote:

So I must obey you. You must obey me. Both of those people would be Master and Slave to each other simultaneously.


If both parties switch it would make sense. But remember we're talking ownership.

Own/be owned
Control/be controlled

You may assume the two factions are identical but they aren't. The drives mentioned may not be equal in each person but their presence is.

~porcelaine



SocratesNot -> RE: Mutual Slavery - is it possible? (5/20/2010 9:54:42 AM)

quote:

Who benefits?


They both benefit, because they enjoy the possibility of controlling the other one, yet, they are controlled at the same time and they don't know what to expect next.



SocratesNot -> RE: Mutual Slavery - is it possible? (5/20/2010 9:56:58 AM)

quote:

If both parties switch it would make sense.


They wouldn't switch. They would be in both roles simultaneously.



LuckyAlbatross -> RE: Mutual Slavery - is it possible? (5/20/2010 9:58:48 AM)

quote:

Each of them would still have power over their own decisions, but only as long as those decisions are not in conflict with the orders of the other.


AKA my relationship with my partner.  We are not M/s nor are we M/s/M/s.  But we are both switches and we both do switch with eachother, the foundation of our relationship is vanilla.

Since what we value most with eachother is mutual fulfillment, we respect the dynamic and truth of self for ourselves and eachother above all else.



ReginaMirus -> RE: Mutual Slavery - is it possible? (5/20/2010 9:59:30 AM)

Give some examples, then. I'm totally lost.



bliss4us09 -> RE: Mutual Slavery - is it possible? (5/20/2010 10:06:39 AM)

To be honest, I can't quite see how that would work. You say they negotiate in case of conflict but that's not what a slave does. Are you actually planning to try this? If so I hope you'll let us know how it turns out?



KnightofMists -> RE: Mutual Slavery - is it possible? (5/20/2010 10:06:43 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SocratesNot

So I must obey you.
You must obey me.

Both of those people would be Master and Slave to each other simultaneously.



From my perspective I do not see it as possible to endure and thrive. Logically, one order could cancel out the other and as such you have a stalemate.

Person A "We will always at our vegetables"

Person B "We will not eat our vegetables"




Pyramus -> RE: Mutual Slavery - is it possible? (5/20/2010 10:08:59 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ReginaMirus

Pfft...yeah. It's called MARRIAGE.


Beat me to it!



KnightofMists -> RE: Mutual Slavery - is it possible? (5/20/2010 10:13:38 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SocratesNot

OK, maybe I defined it too rigorously.

Each of them would still have power over their own decisions, but only as long as those decisions are not in conflict with the orders of the other.

When it comes to decisions concerning both of them, they would negotiate, just like vanilla folks do.




yes.. you orginally comment was rather defined. With the increase latitude that you give her. I am sure that some relationships with the right people could find a way to make this work. But, I would say such individuals would need to be rather mature their developement of their relationships skills or be very quick learners to make it work. I don't suspect that this type of dynamic would be for the feign of heart.



SocratesNot -> RE: Mutual Slavery - is it possible? (5/20/2010 10:14:38 AM)

Conflict would possibly arise only when decisions are about both of them, and in that case they would  negotiate like all the other people negotiate when they are deciding something together.

However, when the decision is about one person only, each of them would have to obey what the other says.

For example:

A: You must eat apples tonight.
B: You must eat oranges tonight.

In the end person A must eat oranges, as person B said, while person B must eat apples as person A said. No conflict.
That was just a banal example, but this could get quite exciting if you substitute eating apples and oranges with some kinkier orders.



leadership527 -> RE: Mutual Slavery - is it possible? (5/20/2010 10:33:25 AM)

I would say that this model is a weird perspective on what Carol and I do. It's not quite right... but it's not totally wrong either.

Carol and I are both enslaved (if you want to think of it that way) to the collective "us". I expect the same sort of obedience to that "us" from myself as I do from Carol. She has substantive input into that will of the "us". Granted, it is me who is sorting out the various thoughts of "us" and coming to a final end-state answer, but I do so impartially.

Beyond that, Carol is currently ahead one "anything" bet (yeah, we bet "anythings" with each other). She could certainly use that bet to accomplish... well... anything.

Beyond that, Carol specifically gets "master" status (again, if you want to think of it that way) in any area in which it seems prudent to do so. For instance, I'm currently stopping smoking. If I felt for whatever reason that I really, really needed a cigarette today, I'd ask her and it would be her answer which was final. In my mind, it just makes no sense to have the addict making such decisions.

As I said, the model proposed is not what we do... but it kind of is when I squint my eyes a bit. The whole "I make all the decisions" model is just too simplistic to describe our relationship. It's good enough in broad brush strokes, but when examined with more detail, it isn't that simple.



KnightofMists -> RE: Mutual Slavery - is it possible? (5/20/2010 10:42:50 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SocratesNot

Conflict would possibly arise only when decisions are about both of them, and in that case they would  negotiate like all the other people negotiate when they are deciding something together.

However, when the decision is about one person only, each of them would have to obey what the other says.

For example:

A: You must eat apples tonight.
B: You must eat oranges tonight.

In the end person A must eat oranges, as person B said, while person B must eat apples as person A said. No conflict.
That was just a banal example, but this could get quite exciting if you substitute eating apples and oranges with some kinkier orders.



not really... it could be

A: You must eat vegetables tonight
B: You must not give orders to eat vegetables.

so you have a conflict and in your the orginal OP this is what makes the complete Mutual Mastery/Slavery impossible. But, though a negotiations of what authority exists with each person. You can have a limited form. Which might appear alot like many marriages in the world.



SocratesNot -> RE: Mutual Slavery - is it possible? (5/20/2010 10:50:59 AM)

Mutual slavery could be completely possible if we introduce additional rule:
No one can give orders about giving orders!



Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875